Alzheimer Disease Detection Studies: Perspective on Multi-Modal Data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases, resulting in progressive cognitive decline, and so accurate and timely AD diagnosis is of critical importance. To this end, various medical technologies and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD), ranging from biosensors and raw signals to medical imaging, have been used to provide information about the state of AD. In this survey, we aim to provide a review on CAD systems for automated AD detection, focusing on different data types: namely, signals and sensors, medical imaging, and electronic medical records (EMR). METHODS: We explored the literature on automated AD detection from 2022-2023. Specifically, we focused on various data resources and reviewed several preprocessing and learning methodologies applied to each data type, as well as evaluation metrics for model performance evaluation. Further, we focused on challenges, future perspectives, and recommendations regarding automated AD diagnosis. RESULTS: Compared to other modalities, medical imaging was the most common data type. The prominent modality was Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). In contrast, studies based on EMR data type were marginal because EMR is mostly used for AD prediction rather than detection. Several challenges were identified: data scarcity and bias, imbalanced datasets, missing information, anonymization, lack of standardization, and explainability. CONCLUSION: Despite recent developments in automated AD detection, improving the trustworthiness and performance of these models, and combining different data types will improve usability and reliability of CAD tools for early AD detection in the clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it